On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 08:44:27 +0000, Ian Jackson
wrote:

Hertz certainly hurts a bit when you say it - especially if you
pronounce it correctly, as 'hairts' (almost a grimace).

Yep. The German pronunciation.

For visitors to the USA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdkaD99XJ5I

'Hertz' requires more breath than 'cycles', so prior to saying it, you
often pause for a momentary intake of air.

Well, let's see if that's true. I just tried it on myself and did not
exactly get the desired effect. For volume, I just hung a piece of
paper in front of my mouth and looked for deflection. The trick is to
say the various words at a constant volume or the results are
worthless. I used a vu meter display on my smartphone to insure that
I was talking at the same level. From the paper deflection, I would
estimate that I move more air saying cycles because of the two
syllables. However, the peak exhaust volume seems to be higher when
saying "Hertz". I then did the same test with a microphone and audio
spectrum analyzer program (Spectrum Lab 2.79). It showed somewhat
different results. Both words showed a fair number of frequency
component peaks of roughly the same amplitude. However, the word
"cycles" had more almost identical peaks thus indicating that it
required more energy to produce. At this point, I'm not sure if I
should believe my paper test, or the spectrum analyzer results.

Also, the units 'Hz', 'kHz'
and 'MHz' don't lend themselves to pronunciation, whereas 'cycles',
'kay-sees' and 'megs' do.

Good point. Abbrevs are important. That might explain the tendency
for hams to prefer using wavelengths (i.e. 80 meters) rather than the
more accurate and specific equivalent frequencies. I use the various
frequency terms far more often in writing than in speech, where such
abbreviations are of lesser importance. I don't have much of problem
with the various SI units prefixes to Hertz, but I certainly have
problems with acronymic contractions such as CPS (cycles per second)
which has more than once been confused with the local Child Protective
Services. I think it best to use Hertz, which does not have this
problem.

Just to get back on topic, since we started using Hz, I'm sure antennas
have become less efficient and signal strengths lower - and it's certain
that QRM is now much worse.

The problem is much worse than that. When I first started in ham
radio, I had a full head of hair, a steady hand, a reasonable bank
balance, and a positive attitude. After being involved in ham radio
for many years, the hair is falling out, the hand is shaky, the bank
balance depleted, and the attitude quite cynical. Obviously, exposure
to ham radio and its associated RF fields has caused this unnatural
deterioration.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558